Singleton El Bey v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Singleton El Bey v. Doe, Judge Schofield dismissed the complaint with prejudice as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Marzallah Martin-Drew Singleton El Bey, whose complaint against John Doe was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous; the court also denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Singleton El Bey v. Doe, Marzallah Martin-Drew Singleton El Bey’s filing was opened as a civil case after he initially filed it as a miscellaneous matter and listed himself as the defendant. The court said it was unclear whom he intended to sue.
The filing contained documents directed to various people and organizations, including officials and attorneys connected to a Bronx housing matter. The court found that the documents used largely incomprehensible pseudo-legal language and did not show that anyone had violated Singleton El Bey’s rights or identify a valid legal claim.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed the complaint with prejudice as frivolous, finding that amendment would be futile. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free appeal status, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Singleton El Bey v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02207
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Marzallah Martin-Drew Singleton El Bey originally filed the matter as a miscellaneous case on August 7, 2023. The opinion says he improperly listed himself as the defendant and that it was unclear whom he intended as the opposing party. Because the filing did not fit any category of miscellaneous matter, Judge Gregory H. Woods directed the Clerk of Court to administratively close that matter and open the submission as a new civil action naming Singleton El Bey as plaintiff and “John Doe” as defendant. The new civil action was opened on March 25, 2024.
The submission included several documents but did not explain why Singleton El Bey was filing them in federal court. They included a “Public Servant(s)/Respondent(s) Questionnaire,” multiple copies of a document titled “Notice of Conditional Acceptance & Negative Averment of Petition Holdover/Residential Eviction,” a document titled “Actual and Constructive Notice of Default and Engagement Into A Private Contract,” and an “Averment of Jurisdiction - Quo Warranto.” The documents were addressed to people and entities connected to a Bronx housing matter, including court officials, attorneys, and an organization. The opinion describes the documents as containing largely incomprehensible pseudo-legal jargon.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it may dismiss a complaint as frivolous even when the plaintiff paid the filing fee. A claim is frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly baseless or when it relies on a legal theory that has no arguable legal merit. The court also stated that it must read filings by people representing themselves liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.
Even under that standard, the court found that the submission was irrational and that it identified no facts showing that anyone had violated Singleton El Bey’s rights. It also found no viable legal claim and no factual basis or legal theory supporting the action. The court therefore concluded that the complaint was based on an indisputably meritless legal theory and was frivolous.
Disposition
Judge Schofield dismissed the complaint with prejudice as frivolous. The court declined to allow amendment because it found that the defects could not be cured. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that purpose. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.